JAN KALYAN TRUST KHERA,SIWANI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTIONS, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 664/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the impugned order being sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to provide complete evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust filed applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) dismissed both applications due to the absence of relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of charitable activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the CIT(E) should reconsider the applications for registration and approval after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit complete evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI

Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL&

Hearing: 27/04/2026Pronounced: 27/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI

BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.664/DEL/2026 & ITA No. 665/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jan Kalyan Trust Khera, V- Vs. ITO Exemptions Khera Siwani Distt Bhiwani, Rohtak Haryana 127046 PAN No. AADTJ5222E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Rahul Narula, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT. DR

Date of hearing: 27/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27/04/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E))”] vide order dated 14.11.2024 pertaining to A.Y.2022-23 passed u/s 12A(1) (ac)(ii) r.w.s.12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act. 1961(herein after referred “the Act”).

2.

These appeals are time barred by 355 days. In the application the assessee stated that the appeal should have filed within 60 days but filed 355 days of delay. He stated that impugned order dated was sent by the department on the email ID siwanioffice1947@gmail.com which does not belong to the assessee. In the Form no. 10 AB the assessee has shown the correct email ID. Because impugned order was not served upon the assessee the appeal could not filed whin time. In the support of the application the assessee has also filed affidavit. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal within time. We find merit of the contention of the assessee, and condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed an application for registration u/s 12A(1) (ac)(iii) and 10AB for approval u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) dismissed the both applications in the absence of the relevant evidences. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(E) passed the order rejecting the applications filed for registration u/s 12A(1) (ac)(iii) and Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G for not furnishing sufficient documents/ evidences to prove the genuineness of charitable activities. In view of the aforesaid

factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem fit and proper to remit back the issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(E) with the direction to consider the issues Afresh in appeals, in accordance with law by giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, Assessee is directed to furnish the complete details/evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law and fully co-operate with him during the proceedings, in order to canvass its case properly. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court 27.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) ( SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

SR BHATNAGAR

Date: 28.04.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →